Methodological paradigms in evaluation research are discussed. This article is a response to the attacks on paradigmatic perspectives made by Reichardt and Cook in the opening chapter of their edited book, "Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research." (Author/GK)

Strategies for increasing evaluation research leverage are reviewed. Alignment of evaluation research with regulatory bodies with authority to suspend public program expenditures is advocated. Several likely obstacles in the development of the regulatory evaluation model are anticipated and addressed. (Author/RL)

Three models of evaluation emerge: objective and independent, objective but serving one interest, and pseudo-scientific public relations. Evaluation of an interdisciplinary mental health education program and roles must all be attended to or the weak link undermines the rest. (Author/RL)

The ERS Standards, together with those of the Joint Committee, symbolize a commitment to the professionalization of evaluation. The two sets of standards differ on five points: (1) perceived linearity of evaluation activities; (2) preferred and permitted approaches; (3) purposes of evaluation; (4) obligations to clients and stakeholders; and (5)…

How some of the past literature creates the impression of an inevitable method-paradigm linkage and of a forced choice between qualitative and quantitative paradigms is shown. Difficulties of making method choices are considered. It is suggested that purposefully developed strengths of different methods should not be ignored. (Author/GK)